A review of Mr. Clarke?s bio revealed a career civil servant with much experience and exposure in arenas of Arms Control and Intelligence. I suspect the president appointed Mr. Clark to his current role because he believed Mr. Clarke?s experience will benefit our national ?cyber? security front. Then again, maybe it was a political favor. Maybe Mr. Clarke was appointed because he possess the vision and leadership necessary to head such an effort. On the other hand, maybe he was chosen because of all the people the President knew, Mr. Clarke was the most technologically experienced in the security arena. Regardless, of why he was appointed, I don?t envy his job or the incredibly huge task he has at hand.

Mr. Clarke?s job is to advise the president on matters of national security as it pertains to the cyber front (that is my understanding anyway). I think the question we should ask is not whether Mr. Clarke is qualified to do his job. I think we should ask whether or not Mr. Clarke?s staffers and technical advisors are technically qualified to do their jobs. I use Tom Ridge to support my statement. Has Mr. Ridge ever been a Homeland Defense cabinet member before? Has he ever been in a position responsible for ensuring the defense of anything? I don?t know because I did not review his bio. This I do know. Mr. Ridge was appointed in that capacity because he shows leadership, vision and loyalty to the government of the United States. I believe Mr. Clarke has the same attributes. I think his staffers has done him severe injustice by not educating him or giving him the right facts to formulate his thoughts and speeches.

Using phrases like ?digital Pearl Harbor? is not only antiquated but it also adds to the hysteria that?s already out there. It feeds paranoia and fear to the minds of lay people. I?m sure Mr. Clarke was only trying to convey a message of vigilance and awareness. The manner in which he delivered the message has been delivered ad infinitum ad nauseum. One can look as close as the latest Gartner reports to see this. No, digital Pearl Harbors do not happen everyday but that doesn?t mean we should not talk about it or prepare for it. This is totally different than throwing statements out there and scaring corporate executives into buying cyber-security insurance. It comes down to an old saying I once heard while serving in the military: ?The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war?. I think Mr. Clarke is trying to say: Let?s start sweating, a lot!

Let?s take a closer look at the people on Mr. Clarke?s staff and scrutinize their qualifications. After all, his geeks are the people he is going to look to when something happens. When something happens, the President of the United States will look to Mr. Clarke. I would hope Mr. Clarke has the best geeks the government can buy.

My very humble opinion. Please excuse any grammatical infractions.


[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/94/14291#14291